A federal judge on Friday opened a formal inquiry into whether Trump administration officials and Justice Department lawyers misled the court about President Donald Trump’s plan to remake East Potomac Golf Links, escalating a bitter legal fight in which she has repeatedly questioned the government’s candor.
U.S. District Judge Ana C. Reyes said she’d appoint a special master to investigate whether Interior and Justice department officials made misrepresentations, withheld information or otherwise violated professional rules during the case.
The inquiry capped an extraordinary day in court in which Reyes pressed government lawyers about a central contradiction in the case: Trump publicly announced Oct. 18 on Truth Social that Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and golf architect Tom Fazio had “developed a plan” for a championship course and that East Potomac would close Nov. 15. The next day, however, government lawyers and Interior officials told the court there was no plan to close the course.
The administration did not acknowledge until this week that Trump had directed Interior and the National Park Service to close the facility by Nov. 15. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. said Thursday that he regarded Trump’s Truth Social post as a directive to Interior akin to an executive order, even as he continued to maintain that no final course plan existed.
“The third-highest-ranking official at the Department of Justice is telling me, telling a federal court, that he cannot say that when the president posted the course will close on Nov. 15, what he meant was the course would close on Nov. 15,” Reyes said.
“The Department of Justice will not be deterred from executing on the President’s agenda,” a department spokesman said in a statement after the hearing.
The judge opened the hearing by reading from D.C. Bar Rule of Professional Conduct 3.3, which bars lawyers from knowingly making false statements to a court or failing to correct prior false statements. She accused Woodward of playing “games” with language after he sought to distinguish Trump’s public statements from the government’s position in court.
“We played games on Oct. 19,” Reyes told Woodward, referencing a previous contentious hearing in her courtroom. “We’re not doing it today.”
At one point, when an Interior lawyer resisted answering whether Burgum had been “involved” in the project, Reyes pulled up an online dictionary and read the word’s definition. Shortly after, as the government sought to distinguish a Trump announcement from a formal plan, she warned: “We’re going to be here a long time if we’re going to have to look up every word in the English dictionary, but I have all day.”
The government also disclosed this week that it planned to submit a Fazio course rendering to the National Capital Planning Commission for review. Woodward said Friday that work on the submission had been underway “in the last few weeks.” Reyes was visibly frustrated with that revelation, noting that government lawyers did not disclose that planning during an Oct. 19 hearing that stretched more than seven hours.
“Are you telling the court that there has been, in the works, a submission to send these plans to the National Capital Planning Commission for weeks, and no one — no one — mentioned that on Oct. 19 in a seven-hour hearing?” Reyes asked. When Woodward responded that he did not recall being asked about a submission, the judge replied: “Are you kidding me right now? Seriously, Mr. Woodward. Come on.”
The judge’s proposed inquiry would examine, among other things, whether the administration’s late notice before the Oct. 10 removal of hundreds of trees was designed to evade judicial review; whether officials omitted material information from declarations; whether they falsely said budget authority was available for the tree cutting; and whether lawyers acted in good faith when they repeatedly told the court there was no plan to redesign or close the course.
Reyes emphasized that the inquiry does not mean she has found wrongdoing.
“There has been no finding of that,” she said. “That is why we’re conducting an investigation.”
The government will have five business days to object once she selects a special master; if one is not appointed, Reyes said she will conduct the inquiry herself. The master would have power to review documents, take discovery, question witnesses under oath and hold an evidentiary hearing.
Reyes on Friday also questioned the administration’s newly emphasized safety rationale for closing the course. Government officials have cited holes in driving-range netting, deteriorated structures and the crumbling seawall around East Potomac Park. Reyes said a damaged net could be replaced and noted that Park Service officials had identified other safety concerns months ago but moved with urgency only to cut down hundreds of trees.
We have a golf course that is a safety hazard everywhere you turn,” she said. “And the only thing — the only thing — that the National Park Service has done to date to address those safety issues is to come up with a plan within 10 days to remove hundreds of trees.”
The underlying lawsuit, brought by the D.C. Preservation League and a pair of local golfers, challenges Trump’s broader plan to remake the public course. The dispute escalated after Park Service crews cut down more than 400 trees over the Oct. 10 holiday weekend.
Friday’s confrontation is the latest escalation in the dispute over Trump’s broader golf project. Reyes on Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring the administration from cutting additional trees without court approval and requiring advance notice before closing the course or making irreversible changes to the park. The administration has appealed the ruling and asked Reyes to put the injunction on hold while the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit considers the case.
The government has said the October tree cutting was separate from Trump’s larger redesign and was intended to restore East Potomac’s historic links-style landscape under a 2019 report. Reyes has found that explanation to likely be “pretextual.”
The case has also become unusually personal. Earlier this month, Justice Department lawyers asked Reyes to recuse herself, accusing her of “open hostility” and bias toward the administration after contentious hearings over the tree removal. Reyes denied that request. Trump has separately called her a “crazed lunatic” who “may be insane.”
What readers are saying
The comments express strong disapproval of the actions taken by Trump and his administration regarding a golf course project, with many commenters criticizing the alleged misleading of the court by DOJ lawyers. There is significant support for Judge Reyes, who is seen as standing... Show more
This summary is AI-generated. AI can make mistakes and this summary is not a replacement for reading the comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment